Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1887-03-16
TIE INDICTMENTS OUASHED.
The Variety Theater Cases Argued on
Demurrer Which is Sustained.


The variety theater cases come up befor'
Judge Galbraith yesterday afternoon at
O'Clock. Messrs. Dewitt. Walsh and Hal
dorm were present for the prosecution
Messrs. Robinson & Stapleton, Dixon ant
Duffy appeared for the defendants. The
ATTORNEYS for the defense demurred to the
Indictment on several specified counts
Mr.. Duffy presented them to the court az
follows: .
2That more than one offence has been
charged. The Indictment must charge but
one offence.
That the facts stated do not constitute
a public offence. The omission in the in
dictment of the word did" in charging the
commission of the offence is a fatal defect.
Mr.. Dewitt replied maintaining that the
defence were quibbling on an Unmatched
difference between q conductive and a dis.
~junctive Observation-Disclosures between
Tor" and and The language OF the in
dictueut only made the offence charged
more definite and certain even ii it were
not the exact language OF the statute and
afforded the defence more information. He
quoted numerous authorities shown g that
the proper procedure is to allege the facts
conjunctively and then to prove them.
Joining two offence in the manner OF the
indictment was not duplicity. The sale OF
several different kinds OF liquors may be
charged in one count. He quoted literally
from the authorities to support his reply
to the points in the demurrer.
He was followed by Mr.. C. j. Walsh, who
maintained in d few brief but pointed
remarks that several different charges wer,.
inserted in the indictment simply that it
may meet the evidence; that if more than
one offence is charged in the Indictment it
SIMPLY completes the %offense; that the
language If the Indictment was plain and
un~mistakable, and uses the language of the
statute which must be taken as sufficient.
Mr.. Haldorn, also for the prosecution,
followed with a synopsis of about forty
authorities which he submitted in brief
form to the Court.
Mr.. Dixon, for the defendants, then arose
and addressed the Court. The defendants
were entitled to be informed OF the nature
of the crime against them. This the
indictment did not do. There was no
specific offence charged. The DEFENDANTS
could not make IN adequate defence under
the present indictment. 1t ought to be set
out to enable them to make their defence
so as to be a bar to any subsequent
prosecution. There was little in the
Indictment to designate any offense. The
probability was that there was a violation
Of law, but nothing was known as to whom
the liquor was sold and the particu lar kind
of liquor sold and on what occasion. When
any jury had found a verdict under this ill.,
dictment, no one could tell of what offence
the defendants were guilty. This Indictment
is uncertain all the way through. The de.
are charged with fifty different acts
under it to any OF which they might be re-
quired to plead-no knowing which There
ought to be some reasonable certainty, and
the defendants should not be confronted
an uncertain charge under which the
OF a dozen different acts could be
At the conclusion of Mr.. Dixon's remarks
Judge Galbraith sustained the demurrer on
the ground that no specified offense is
in the Indictment; that it does not
to the defendant the nature of the
with which he is charged.
Mr.. De Witt at once took the papers in
5he case and drew up a new indictment COW
the defects pointed out by the Judge
andp presented the same without delay to
he Grand Jury who had postponed pre-
their final report until this could be
lone, after which the Grand Jury camel into
court with two indictments against Richie
ind two against Richie & Gordon, and
)ail in each case was liked at $500. This
lime counsel for the prosecution expect the
'ase to stick.